“Crime is crime”: meet the Internet police

Industry has spent the last year drawing up lists of websites, which US …

John Morton, head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), wants netheads to know something about his agency: they are "not the police of the Internet." So what's the story with our headline? Morton made his comment about not policing the 'Net at the end of speech this week in which he talked about nothing except policing the 'Net. His agency may not be the police of the Internet, but it's certainly one of them, with its investigations "increasingly directed toward Web-based criminals." And Morton says that's a good thing.

ICE doesn't get much coverage in the tech press, being more concerned with illegal immigration and shipping containers full of Coach knockoff handbags. But that changed in 2010 as ICE launched "Operation In Our Sites," which is "spelled s-i-t-e-s as a purposeful play on words."

This was an industry-led effort to identify and take over domain names from sites that dealt in infringing content. Rightsholders drew up lists of sites, sent them over to the ICE, and ICE obligingly cracked down on the alleged crooks—getting seizure orders from a federal magistrate and taking over a host of domain names that were registered in the US. This happened in two stages last year, and will continue in 2011.

John Morton, ICE director

Whac-a-Mole actually whacks its moles

Two things to note here: first, these were simple domain name seizures. The servers hosting the sites in question weren't touched, so operators only had to get a new domain (preferably from a non-US registrar) to be back in business.

As punishment, this sounds extraordinarily weak. Why even bother? Indeed, Morton admits his own surprise at what happened next.

Of great interest, and frankly unanticipated, was the collateral impact of this enforcement action. According to industry analysis, 81 other sites that had been offering pirated material voluntarily shut themselves down. In my many years in law enforcement, I have not seen that type of deterrence. Indeed, we were advised that seizing these domain names would be the proverbial Whac-a-Mole game with new ones popping up faster than we could obtain court orders. That did not occur and while two of the original domain names seized did reemerge in another form, the vast majority did not and two months ago, we seized one of the two that had been resurrected and was offering pirated movies again. It has not reemerged since.

The ICE warning page on seized domains

Marching to the beat

Second, the lists drawn up by industry weren't exactly foolproof. As Morton describes it, "the private sector referred over 130 websites for actions, but ICE agents through their investigation, narrowed this list considerably and court orders were executed against 82 sites. So while industry can refer, law enforcement and the federal court system have the responsibility to determine which are engaged in illegal conduct."

Even among the final, pared-down target list, some of the sites were questionable. The New York Timestalked to the operator of hip-hop music blog dajaz1.com, which had its domain seized. The site's owner expressed bafflement, showing the paper e-mails in which music industry execs had e-mailed him some of the songs he had posted. And, while many of the seized sites involved counterfeit products, others were much harder to categorize. One, a torrent search engine, did not host any files nor operate a tracker. Was the site actually illegal?

Morton says the process is fair:

As with any other court order, the owner of that domain name may challenge the seizure warrant through petition to the U.S. District Court in which it was issued. A hearing would then be held at which the site owner would appear and have counsel present, if they so desired. The government would have the burden of proof and present our evidence so that the court could determine the validity of the affidavit that had initially supported the seizure.

But some of the seizure documents suggested that ICE doesn't actually know as much about these kinds of investigations as Morton suggests. Several sites were investigated by ICE agent Andrew Reynolds, who has only been investigating IP crimes since mid-2009. His affidavit contained definitions like this juicy nugget: "A Bit torrent (referred to in short as 'torrent' or 'torrent file') is a files distribution system used for transferring files across a network of people." His description of his investigative tactics—which include attempts at downloading files from sites not even named in the investigation and pictures of blog entries from other sites—didn't inspire confidence among the blogosphere.

But Morton's going to "stay at it," and he's "unapologetic on that last point." He plans to disrupt the "virtual flea market that has become a seamy side of the Internet."

If crime is crime, then he should go after the companies that submitted the bogus claims, for slander and attempting to deprive them of their 1st amendment rights... Then himself for failing to follow due process as required by the 4th amendment of the document that he, as a federal employee, swore to defend.

Just saying.

Why apply a double standard here. I mean just he decided to appoint himself as the sheriff of the net, broaden his agencies scope without mandate, and not follow the few rules we already had as written, means he committed a 'crime' to, right, and 'crime, is crime' right?

There is that hideous National Intellectual Properties Rights Coordination Center logo. I know I am nitpicking, but the institution that is supposed to protect creative works should at least have a somewhat creative logo itself. Also they have the wrong bird on the logo too.

Then himself for failing to follow due process as required by the 4th amendment of the document that he, as a federal employee, swore to defend.

The only federal employees that swear to defend the Constitution are congresscritters, the president, and supreme court justices. One might argue that the swearing "trickles down" through the three branches after the swearing of the heads of said branches, but that's a stretch.

No, crime "is not" just crime. Crime is what politicians say is unlawful.It's not enough that every facet of our lives is now controlled offline, but they want to do so online as well.Get the government OUT of the internet.

Hey if the best that can do is snatch up domain names, I am not really that worried about it. What bothers me more, since they are taking the time to mention it is capturing shipments of knockoff products. I mean seriously, are the people selling them really selling them at normal retail price, last time I was offered a knock off rolex they were asking 20 bucks. Now listen. If you are buying a knock off product at bargain basement prices, you know your buying a knock off. Where is the harm. Are they worried that your going to impress you drinking buddies by telling them you could afford a real rolex? Who the fuck cares, if someone wants to crank out shit quality stuff with a fake brand label on it, and sell it for next to nothing to people who know they are buying a knock off I just don't see the problem. If you are buying a 20 dollar rolex from some dude selling them on the street you probably can't afford to buy a real one anyway, I don't think it is hurting the rolex bottom line.

1. In applying existing laws to the internet, great job! I never thought there should be a DCMA, a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cyberbullying, etc. There is just actual fraud, and actual bullying, that happens to be done online. We shouldn't treat it better or worse because of it. Jammie what's her name should've been charged as if she stole music from a store... i.e. probation and a $300 fine.

2. Crime is crime. And although copyright infringement is and should be illegal, so is collusion (keeping songs off the net), writing unconstitutional laws (extending copyright indefinitely), and abusing the legal system for purposes of intimidation and extortion (suing file sharers in one big lawsuit)

So really, at the end of the day, big media should be broken up by the DOJ for racketeering, and of its members found to have knowingly committed crimes should be imprisoned and their gains forfeited. They should be forced to sell all their products through any resale channel, online or otherwise, at a reasonable and competitive price, without DRM.

Once that happens, we should give a year or two for habits to adjust, and start treating any copyright infringement as just that. If people are guilty of downloading a song, send 'em to juvee and tell 'em not to do it again. If someone is knowingly selling devices or codes that allow piracy of video games (and no other legitimate purpose) send them to jail for a long time and take their ill-gotten games.

Crime is crime. Fair is fair. I'd love to be back in a land where "justice" was fair again.

1. In applying existing laws to the internet, great job! I never thought there should be a DCMA, a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cyberbullying, etc. There is just actual fraud, and actual bullying, that happens to be done online. We shouldn't treat it better or worse because of it. Jammie what's her name should've been charged as if she stole music from a store... i.e. probation and a $300 fine.

2. Crime is crime. And although copyright infringement is and should be illegal, so is collusion (keeping songs off the net), writing unconstitutional laws (extending copyright indefinitely), and abusing the legal system for purposes of intimidation and extortion (suing file sharers in one big lawsuit)

So really, at the end of the day, big media should be broken up by the DOJ for racketeering, and of its members found to have knowingly committed crimes should be imprisoned and their gains forfeited. They should be forced to sell all their products through any resale channel, online or otherwise, at a reasonable and competitive price, without DRM.

Once that happens, we should give a year or two for habits to adjust, and start treating any copyright infringement as just that. If people are guilty of downloading a song, send 'em to juvee and tell 'em not to do it again. If someone is knowingly selling devices or codes that allow piracy of video games (and no other legitimate purpose) send them to jail for a long time and take their ill-gotten games.

Crime is crime. Fair is fair. I'd love to be back in a land where "justice" was fair again.

An awesome post!!! You took the words out of my mouth to say the least. I only wish someone in a position to do something about the situation looked at it in the same terms.

"Crime is crime"...and...As we know, There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

"The government would have the burden of proof and present our evidence so that the court could determine the validity of the affidavit that had initially supported the seizure. "

Is not seizing someones business already a punishment? It's a huge punishment actually, they should have to prove in court before it happens not the other way around, it;s not like someones life is at risk.

He is absolutely right; crime *is* crime, and it's good that LE is starting take crimes committed online seriously.

So it's good that cops that clearly have only the slightest modicum of technical sense are now charged with policing the internet at the behest of corporate interests? Really? It kind of seems like this should be way down on the priority list for tax money expenditure in the middle of a recession but hey, at least the RIAA and MPAA can stop spending their money to defend their members property now, right?

Jammie what's her name should've been charged as if she stole music from a store... i.e. probation and a $300 fine.

Jammie's crime was not illegal downloading. It was illegal, unauthorized distribution. Illegal distribution always has stiffer penalties. It's like the difference between buying a bag of drugs and selling a bag of drugs. Which will you go away for longer?

VoodooTrucker wrote:

2. Crime is crime. And although copyright infringement is and should be illegal, so is collusion (keeping songs off the net), writing unconstitutional laws (extending copyright indefinitely), and abusing the legal system for purposes of intimidation and extortion (suing file sharers in one big lawsuit)

Fair is fair. I'd love to be back in a land where "justice" was fair again.

I agree. If the law can provide a better way to penalize illegal downloaders than massive, disproportionate lawsuits that would be great. Unfortunately, pirates aren't willing to accept any penalization, so everyone just has to work with the laws that exist for the time being.

So it's good that cops that clearly have only the slightest modicum of technical sense are now charged with policing the internet at the behest of corporate interests? Really? It kind of seems like this should be way down on the priority list for tax money expenditure in the middle of a recession but hey, at least the RIAA and MPAA can stop spending their money to defend their members property now, right?

Protecting business is always one of the first priorities in a recession. The intellectual property industries pay billions in tax dollars every year and employ millions. Just a handful of the corporate entities that were assisted through this action - Nike, NFL, MLB, RIAA/MPAA, Viacom, Disney - add up to hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue a year that goes towards job maintenance. All their revenue is also taxed significantly.

Spending a few million dollars on law enforcement initiatives to protect those industries is the sensible thing to do. At least, it is far more sensible than just throwing them down the drain because a few idiots on the Internet want everything for nothing.

Then himself for failing to follow due process as required by the 4th amendment of the document that he, as a federal employee, swore to defend.

The only federal employees that swear to defend the Constitution are congresscritters, the president, and supreme court justices. One might argue that the swearing "trickles down" through the three branches after the swearing of the heads of said branches, but that's a stretch.

Bzzt, thank you for playing. You missed the largest group of federal employees that swear to support and defend the Constitution: the military.

I agree. If the law can provide a better way to penalize illegal downloaders than massive, disproportionate lawsuits that would be great. Unfortunately, pirates aren't willing to accept any penalization, so everyone just has to work with the laws that exist for the time being.

"Unfortunately, no one has thought up a better deterrent for thieves than cutting off their hands, so we'll continue to violate human rights for now."

So it's good that cops that clearly have only the slightest modicum of technical sense are now charged with policing the internet at the behest of corporate interests? Really? It kind of seems like this should be way down on the priority list for tax money expenditure in the middle of a recession but hey, at least the RIAA and MPAA can stop spending their money to defend their members property now, right?

Protecting business is always one of the first priorities in a recession. The intellectual property industries pay billions in tax dollars every year and employ millions. Just a handful of the corporate entities that were assisted through this action - Nike, NFL, MLB, RIAA/MPAA, Viacom, Disney - add up to hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue a year that goes towards job maintenance. All their revenue is also taxed significantly.

Spending a few million dollars on law enforcement initiatives to protect those industries is the sensible thing to do. At least, it is far more sensible than just throwing them down the drain because a few idiots on the Internet want everything for nothing.

There's a fair bit of evidence that:1. online piracy is not having a significant effect on the intellectual property industries2. that reducing copyright terms would spur creation and publication of new works, with positive economic benefits to society.

Given that there is some evidence that spending 'a few million dollars' on these initiatives is neither necessary, nor more helpful than dismantling the copyright regime we've got, I think you should provide some evidence for your claims too, and then we can compare them and see whether or not one set is more reliable-seeming than the other.

There's a fair bit of evidence that:1. online piracy is not having a significant effect on the intellectual property industries

What proof would you possibly accept to the contrary?

Do global trends in piracy and anti-piracy as they relate to sales have anything to do with it?

As Helienne Lindvall wrote in The Guardian last Thursday:

Quote:

If we compare countries with a high frequency of piracy – and little effort to tackle it – with those with lower rates of piracy a telling picture emerges. Spain, who along with Brazil has the highest rate (45%) of internet users getting their music from illegal sites, has seen overall music sales fall by around 55% in the past five years (last year alone it declined by 22%). In contrast South Korea, whose government has taken action against illegal downloading, is one of the few countries seeing an overall growth in revenue for recorded music by 10% in the first half of 2010.

It appears the new local acts have suffered the biggest setback from Spain's recording industry bottoming out. In 2004, local acts accounted for nearly 80% of all sales. That share has now shrunk to 40%. The steep decline in revenue has seen label investment in new acts drying up. In the past two years, not a single new Spanish artist has featured in the country's top 50 selling albums, compared to 10 in 2003.

What about the realities of running a modern IP company when piracy becomes a factor?

Regarding PSP piracy, God of War developer Ready at Dawn said:

Quote:

"It’s getting to the point where it doesn’t make sense to make games on it, if the piracy keeps on increasing. It’s a tough call right now to say what’s going to happen to it and where it’s going to go, but it definitely hurts a lot of developers out there who are trying to make great games.”

“The PC market has had connectivity and multiplayer, which brings down the piracy, and a lot of the PC games right now, the big ones at least, require you to be logged into a specific network – like Battlenet, when I used to work at Blizzard – that controls it, and has made it easy to curb some of that,”

“It’s pretty scary to think that it’s got to this extent.”

If a rights holder wants to release their work for free to get free promotion, they have always and will always have that right under copyright law. But that is their choice.

"C3 brings the full range of ICE computer and forensic assets together in a single location to combat such Internet-related crimes as:

Possession, manufacture and distribution of images of child abuse;International money laundering and illegal cyber-banking;Illegal arms trafficking and illegal export of strategic/controlled commodities;Drug trafficking, including trafficking in prohibited pharmaceuticals;General smuggling, including trafficking in stolen art and antiquities and violations of the Endangered Species Act;Intellectual property rights violations, including music and software;Immigration violations; andIdentity and benefit fraud.

C3 is made up of four components. Three of these — the Cyber Crimes Section (CCS), the Child Exploitation Section (CES) and the Digital Forensic Section (DFS) — provide cyber technical and investigative services. The fourth component, the Information Technology and Administrative Section (ITAS), provides the technical and operational infrastructure services necessary to support the other three C3 sections.

C3 brings together special agents, intelligence research specialists, administrative support and contractors who support ICE Internet investigations. C3 program managers are available to provide guidance and training to field agents and other U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies upon request."

He is absolutely right; crime *is* crime, and it's good that LE is starting take crimes committed online seriously.

So it's good that cops that clearly have only the slightest modicum of technical sense are now charged with policing the internet at the behest of corporate interests? Really? It kind of seems like this should be way down on the priority list for tax money expenditure in the middle of a recession but hey, at least the RIAA and MPAA can stop spending their money to defend their members property now, right?

From the RIAA's perspective, it's fantastic. The less people know, the easier they are to manipulate. See our lovely friend D_Jedi and the 15 or so others like him that appear all over Ars tech policy comment threads. The RIAA lobbyists do a marvelous job of making their tiny industry massively influential, it helps that they have limitless funding for "campaign contributions" and "research funds". You don't have to scratch the surface of the recording industry to start finding slime. Just research "works made for hire", or see just how much money they pour into lobbyist firms. Wonder to yourself where a "broke and dying" industry "reeling from the effects of rampant piracy" is getting untold millions of dollars they can literally throw away. Certainly their actual profit is either not from the "dying industry" at all, or they're just straight lying. You tell me which is more likely.

The first of those two evidences for the ills of piracy is just the fallacy of presuming causation from correlation (as a side note, I wouldn't bother reading anything The Guardian posts, it's just as insipidly partisan as the Daily Mail, but with a different political skew) the second is a developer saying that PSP piracy is a deterrent for developers looking to develop games for the console. I have no doubt that the second point is true, I do, however, doubt whether the fears that developers face over piracy are legitimate and whether the PSP would have fared any better without piracy. I've never pirated anything for the PSP and I still haven't bought a game for it since its release and I don't know anyone who has. The PSP was flawed from the get go: a fairly expensive piece of mobile gaming technology that provides significantly worse technological capabilities than the current generation of consoles looking to fill the non-existent market of serious gamers (the only kind willing to spend the £180 demanded at original sale price) that travel so much they have to constantly be away from far, far better technology. The DS markets at a crowd that don't care anywhere near as much about technological capability.

This is the problem with uncontrolled statistics based studies, they all have multiple interpretations that can be skewed toward a given agenda. Pirates can say 'the low PSP sales are due to the PSP being unpopular as a gaming platform, not piracy' and the developers can say 'the low PSP sales are due to the PSP's games being heavily pirated' and the statistics support both claims equally. This is why it's a fallacy to assume causation from a correlation, statistical studies leave every variable uncontrolled so we can't actually show what it is that caused the effect upon the dependent variable. Showing that X demographic has Y piracy and Z music sales shows us nothing useful unless we can absolutely isolate every variable except the independent (Y) and the dependent (Z). If we leave variables uncontrolled (e.g. amount of money, economic recession, changes in quality of product, non-specific social changes etc) then any number of other variables could cause a change in the dependent variable. Unfortunately, sociology is not a method of scientific proof, it is a method of preliminary hypothesis testing and generation that's supposed to generate genuine, controlled scientific experiments. It's a shame that the government has been projecting the idea that sociological studies are valid scientific proof because they aren't (I'm sure some sociologists would disagree, but then I'd ask those sociologists to pick up a freshman book on the scientific method, to flick through it and note with dismay the number of times that it references to 'falsifiability' and 'experimental control'). There's no point fretting that pirates won't ever accept any evidence that proves their claims wrong if the evidence presented is continuously scientifically flawed; that's a valid reason to deny the claims of a study.